Case Citator › Cort v. Ash

Cort v. Ash

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
422 U.S. 66
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
115 of 115
Citing cases (total)
3,336
Treatment dates
1979–1981
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Limited. All 115 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The three confirmed treatments are listed below: the Supreme Court made congressional intent the central and dispositive inquiry, rejected equal weighting of Cort's four factors, and held that the latter factors need not be reached when statutory text and history show no intent to create a private remedy. No stronger adverse treatment was found.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

3,336 later cases cite Cort v. Ash; 115 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Cort v. Ash?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court limited Cort's four-factor framework by holding that the factors are not entitled to equal weight and that congressional intent is the central inquiry; where statutory text and legislative history negate a private remedy, the inquiry ends without considering the remaining factors.

    Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    It is true that in Cort v. Ash, the Court set forth four factors that it considered “relevant” in determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one. But the Court did not decide that each of these factors is entitled to equal weight. The central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to create, either expressly or by implication, a private cause of action. . . . At least in such a case as this, the inquiry ends there: The question whether Congress, either expressly or by implication, intended to create a private right of action, has been definitely answered in the negative.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court reaffirmed the intent-focused limitation on Cort and rejected the argument that utility and the traditional allocation of state and federal law can independently justify an implied remedy.

    Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The dispositive question remains whether Congress intended to create any such remedy. Having answered that question in the negative, our inquiry is at an end.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court further limited Cort by holding that its first two factors are dispositive when they reveal no congressional intent to create a private remedy, making consideration of the third and fourth factors unnecessary.

    California v. Sierra Club · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Here consideration of the first two Cort factors is dispositive. The language of the statute and its legislative history do not suggest that the Act was intended to create federal rights for the especial benefit of a class of persons but rather that it was intended to benefit the public at large through a general regulatory scheme to be administered by the then Secretary of War. Nor is there any evidence that Congress anticipated that there would be a private remedy. This being the case, it is unnecessary to inquire further to determine whether the purpose of the statute would be advanced by the judicial implication of a private action or whether such a remedy is within the federal domain of interest. These factors are only of relevance if the first two factors give indication of congressional intent to create the remedy.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cort v. Ash and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace